Western Australian Planning Commission v Southregal Pty Ltd

The High Court of Australia heard appeals from the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia concerning compensation for land injuriously affected by a planning scheme. The appellants were the Western Australian Planning Commission, and the respondents were landowners who had purchased land after it had been reserved for public purposes under a planning scheme. The dispute centred on whether these subsequent purchasers were entitled to compensation under the *Planning and Development Act 2005* (WA).

The legal issue before the High Court was whether section 177(2) of the *Planning and Development Act 2005* (WA) provided a right to compensation only to the landowner at the time of the reservation of the land for public purposes, or if it also extended to subsequent purchasers of that land who were refused development approval. The primary judge and the Court of Appeal had found in favour of the subsequent purchasers, holding that they were entitled to compensation.

The High Court allowed the appeals, reasoning that the right to compensation under section 177(2) of the Act was confined to the owner of the land at the time of the reservation. The Court found that while section 173 of the Act provided for compensation where land was injuriously affected by the making or amendment of a planning scheme, section 177 stipulated the specific circumstances and persons entitled to such compensation. The Court concluded that the wording of section 177(2)(b), which referred to the owner at the time of a development application, did not override the primary entitlement of the original owner at the time of reservation, and that the legislature's choice of words, while potentially confusing, should not be given a strained meaning that was at odds with the overall scheme of the statute. The Court noted that Parliament can sometimes include surplusage, and the perceived redundancy in section 177(2)(b) did not justify a literal interpretation that would alter the fundamental entitlement.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the orders of the Court of Appeal and ordered that the question of law be answered in the negative, meaning the respondents were not entitled to compensation. The appellants were awarded their costs.